NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2473

1 W.P. No.12337/2025 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33970

1 W.P. No.43709/2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA

PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI

WRIT PETITION No. 12337 of 2025

DR. VIJAY

Versus

M.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Tushar Sodani - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Vindhyavashini Prasad Khare - for the respondent/ MP

PSC.

Ms.Drishti Rawal –GA for the respondent/State.

WITH

WRIT PETITION No. 12344 of 2025

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2473

2 W.P. No.12337/2025

DR. PARKASH CHANDRA MARU

Versus

M.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THROUGH

CHAIRMAN AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Tushar Sodani - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Vindhyavashini Prasad Khare - for the respondent/

MPPSC.

Ms.Drishti Rawal –GA for the respondent/State.

WRIT PETITION No. 35625 of 2025

DR. GOPAL EEKWALE AND OTHERS

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Anil Nagrani - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Vindhyavashini Prasad Khare - for the respondent/ MP

Shri Tushar Sodani - Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms.Drishti Rawal –GA for the respondent/State.

WRIT PETITION No. 35630 of 2025

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2473

3 W.P. No.12337/2025

DR. SANDEEP EVNE

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Anil Nagrani - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Vindhyavashini Prasad Khare - for the respondent/ MP

PSC.

Ms.Drishti Rawal –GA for the respondent/State.

WRIT PETITION No. 35843 of 2025

DR. ABHISHEK KUMAWAT

Versus

M.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Abhinav Malhotra - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Vindhyavashini Prasad Khare - for the respondent/ MP

PSC.

Ms.Drishti Rawal –GA for the respondent/State.

WRIT PETITION No. 37593 of 2025

DR. ATUL VERMA AND OTHERS

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2473

4 W.P. No.12337/2025

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Anil Nagrani - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Vindhyavashini Prasad Khare - for the respondent/

MPPSC.

Ms.Drishti Rawal –GA for the respondent/State.

WRIT PETITION No. 38013 of 2025

DR. VEENAS

Versus

M.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Tushar Sodani - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Vindhyavashini Prasad Khare - for the respondent/ MP

PSC.

Ms.Drishti Rawal –GA for the respondent/State.

WRIT PETITION No. 40895 of 2025

DR NAVEEN KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS

Versus

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2473

5 W.P. No.12337/2025

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Anil Nagrani - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Vindhyavashini Prasad Khare - for the respondent/

MPPSC.

Ms.Drishti Rawal –GA for the respondent/State.

WRIT PETITION No. 40924 of 2025

DR. ARTI

Versus

M.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Tushar Sodani - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Vindhyavashini Prasad Khare - for the respondent/ MP

PSC.

Ms.Drishti Rawal –GA for the respondent/State.

WRIT PETITION No. 42381 of 2025

DR AMAN JAGGI

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2473

6 W.P. No.12337/2025

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH A ND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Anil Nagrani - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Vindhyavashini Prasad Khare - for the respondent/ MP

PSC.

Ms.Drishti Rawal –GA for the respondent/State.

WRIT PETITION No. 45243 of 2025

DR. SHIWANGHI RAGHUWANSHI C/O ABHISH EAK ARORA

Versus

M.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Tushar Sodani - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Vindhyavashini Prasad Khare - for the respondent/ MP

PSC.

Ms.Drishti Rawal –GA for the respondent/State.

WRIT PETITION No. 45268 of 2025

DR. REETU

Versus

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2473

7 W.P. No.12337/2025

M P PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THROUGH

SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Tushar Sodani - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Vindhyavashini Prasad Khare - for the respondent/ MP

PSC.

Ms.Drishti Rawal –GA for the respondent/State.

Reserved on 12.01.2026

Post on 27.01.2026

ORDER

Since all the present writ petitions involve common questions of

fact and law arising out of identical recruitment advertisements and

assailing similar impugned actions of the Madhya Pradesh Public

Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “MPPSC”), they are

being heard and decided analogously by this common order.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are qualified medical

practitioners holding Post Graduate Degrees/Diplomas (MD/MS/DNB)

in their respective specialties such as General Medicine, Pediatrics,

Anesthesiology, Surgery, ENT, Orthopedics, Gynecology,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2473

8 W.P. No.12337/2025

Tuberculosis, and other allied disciplines. All the petitioners possess

permanent registration with the Madhya Pradesh Medical Council and

are either serving as government doctors or practicing as private doctors

in various government hospitals/private clinics of the State of Madhya

Pradesh or are practicing as medical professionals.

3. The Respondent (MPPSC) issued various recruitment

advertisements inviting online applications for the posts of Medical

Officer (Grade-I) and Specialist Doctors under the Public Health and

Medical Education Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh.

4. It is further the case of petitioners that as per the original

advertisements, the essential eligibility condition prescribed was

possession of a recognized Post Graduate qualification in the concerned

specialty along with Permanent Registration with the Madhya Pradesh

Medical Council. Notably, no requirement of possessing or producing a

separate “Post Graduate Additional Registration Certificate” as on the

cut-off date was stipulated either in the advertisements or in any

corrigendum issued contemporaneously.

5. The petitioners being fully eligible as per the notified conditions,

submitted their online applications within the prescribed time. In certain

cases, the application portal closed prior to declaration of PG results,

while in other cases, the petitioners had already acquired the PG

qualification but the process of endorsement/additional registration by

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2473

9 W.P. No.12337/2025

the Medical Council was pending due to administrative reasons beyond

their control.

6. In several petitions, this Court by interim orders passed in

connected writ petitions, permitted the petitioners to submit their

applications and participate in the selection process, including

interviews, subject to the final outcome of the writ petitions. The

petitioners accordingly complied with all directions and participated

bona fide in the recruitment process.

7. Subsequently, during the course of document verification or even

after declaration of provisional results, the respondent (MPPSC) by

issuing impugned notifications/publications rejected the candidature of

the petitioners solely on the ground that their “Post Graduate Additional

Registration” issued by the Madhya Pradesh Medical Council was

obtained after the cut-off date of 21/04/2025.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the said

ground of rejection is ex facie arbitrary and illegal, as the requirement

of obtaining PG Additional Registration by the cut-off date was never a

condition of eligibility under the original advertisements, nor was such

a requirement uniformly applied in similar recruitments conducted by

MPPSC.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2473

10 W.P. No.12337/2025

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argue that in many

instances, the respondents themselves issued admit cards, accepted

documents including Permanent and Additional Registration

Certificates, issued acknowledgements thereof, and even permitted the

petitioners to appear in interviews, only thereafter rejected their

candidature on a hyper-technical and retrospectively introduced

criterion.

10. The petitioners contend that the delay, if any, in issuance of

Additional Registration by the Madhya Pradesh Medical Council was

due to administrative procedures of the statutory body, which were

entirely beyond the control of the petitioners, and could not have been

made as ground to deny them consideration for public employment,

particularly when large numbers of posts admittedly remain vacant and

unfilled.

11. According to the petitioners, the impugned action of the

respondents amounts to changing the rules of the game after the game

has begun and is violative of the principles of fairness, transparency,

and legitimate expectation and infringes the petitioners’ fundamental

rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India,

and in certain cases Article 19(1)(g) as well.

12. Being left with no alternative efficacious remedy, and being

aggrieved by the illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory rejection of their

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2473

11 W.P. No.12337/2025

candidature, the petitioners have invoked the extraordinary writ

jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India seeking quashment of the impugned rejection notifications and

consequential directions for consideration of their candidature on

merits.

13. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit

that the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission is only a

recruiting agency and is duty-bound to conduct selections strictly in

accordance with the requisition and eligibility conditions prescribed by

the State Government. The Commission has no power to relax or

modify the conditions of eligibility. In the present recruitment, the

selection process was carried out strictly as per advertisement and the

subsequent corrigenda.

14. It is further argued on behalf of the respondents that the last date

for submission of online applications was finally fixed as 21/04/2025,

and the eligibility of all candidates was required to be assessed with

reference to the said cut-off date alone. A candidate who does not

possess the requisite qualification on the cut-off date cannot claim

consideration. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Soumen Paul &

Others v. Shrabani Nayek & Others - AIR 2025 SC 2243.

15. The learned counsel for the respondents contend that possession

of the Post Graduate degree in the relevant specialty along with

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2473

12 W.P. No.12337/2025

Permanent Registration based upon such qualification was mandatory

as on the cut-off date. Admittedly, the petitioners acquired the MD

degree after 21/04/2025 and the corresponding registration even later.

Hence, the petitioners were not eligible on the crucial date and their

candidature was rightly rejected.

16. It is further submitted by the respondents’ counsel that the

petitioners furnished incorrect and misleading information in the online

application by mentioning a registration not related to the essential Post

Graduate qualification. Suppression of material facts disentitles a

candidate from public employment, as held in A.P. Public Service

Commission v. Koneti Venkateshwarulu & Others - (2005) 7 SCC

177.

17. The respondents counsel further submit that mere issuance of an

admit card or interview call letter does not confer any vested right upon

a candidate. The advertisement itself clearly stipulates that candidature

can be rejected at any stage if the candidate is found ineligible.

Cancellation of candidature even after participation in the selection

process is legally permissible, as held in Public Service Commission v.

Arvind Singh Chauhan, (2009) 9 SCC 135.

18. Placing further reliance on settled law, it is argued that the cut-off

date prescribed in the recruitment process cannot be ignored on

sympathetic or equitable grounds. If a candidate does not possess the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2473

13 W.P. No.12337/2025

requisite qualification on the cut-off date, he is not eligible for the post.

In this regard, reliance has been placed on State of Rajasthan v.

Hitendra Kumar Bhatt, JT 1997 (7) SC 287, and Ashok Kumar

Sonkar v. Union of India & Others, (2007) 4 SCC 54.

19. The learned counsel for the respondents also submit that

prescription of qualifications and determination of eligibility fall within

the domain of recruitment policy. Courts cannot expand or alter the

prescribed qualifications through judicial review. This principle has

been reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmad

Rather & Others v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Others - (2019) 2

SCC 404.

20. It is additionally contended on behalf of the respondents that the

scrutiny of eligibility was undertaken by expert officers of the Public

Health and Medical Education Department, who are independent of the

Commission. Decisions taken by expert bodies regarding eligibility and

suitability should not ordinarily be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

In respect of it, reliance has been placed on Madras Institute of

Development Studies v. Dr. K. Sivasubramaniyan & Others, AIR

2015 SC 3643.

21. The respondents’ counsel further argues that the conditions

relating to submission of applications and documents within the

prescribed time are mandatory and must be strictly complied with.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2473

14 W.P. No.12337/2025

Courts cannot direct relaxation of such conditions once the recruitment

process has commenced. In support of this contention, reliance is placed

on the Full Bench decision in Rajendra Patel v. State of U.P. &

Another - AIR 2015 Allahabad 161.

22. Finally, learned counsel for the respondents submit that the action

of Respondents No.1 and 2 is legal, justified, and strictly in consonance

with the advertisement, corrigenda, and settled principles of law. Since

the petitioners admittedly did not fulfil the essential eligibility criteria

as on the cut-off date, no interference is warranted by this Hon’ble

Court and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

23. Heard both parties at length and examined the entire record

available.

24. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through

the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the controversy

involved in the present batch of petitions lies in the core question as to

whether the rejection of the petitioners’ candidature solely on the

ground that the “Post Graduate Additional Registration” was obtained

after the cut-off date of 21/04/2025 is legally sustainable, when such a

requirement was not expressly prescribed as an essential eligibility

condition in the recruitment advertisements.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2473

15 W.P. No.12337/2025

25. On a careful perusal of the educational qualification clause

prescribed in the advertisements, it clearly emerges that the essential

educational qualification is confined to possession of a Post Graduate

Diploma/Degree/Super Specialty qualification in the relevant discipline

recognized by the Medical Council of India. The verbatim of the

educational qualification as specified in the advertisement reads as

follows:-

“अननवायय शैक्षनिक अहयता :-

भारतीय आयुनवयज्ञान पररषद् द्वारा मान्यता प्राप्त संबंनधत नवषय में

स्नातकोत्तर निप्लोमा अथवा सी.पी.एस. निप्लोमा अथवा समतुल्य अहयता,

अथवा भारतीय आयुनवयज्ञान पररषद् द्वारा मान्यता प्राप्त संबंनधत नवषय में

स्नातकोत्तर निग्री, अथवा भारतीय आयुनवयज्ञान पररषद् द्वारा मान्यता प्राप्त

संबंनधत नवषय में सुपर स्पेशनिटी निग्री/निप्लोमा।

वांछनीय अहयता :-

मध्यप्रदेश निनकत्सा पररषद् में स्थायी पंजीयन अननवायय।“

26. This Court finds that the clause relating to Permanent

Registration with the Madhya Pradesh Medical Council has been

categorically placed under the heading “वांछनीय अहयता (Desirable

Qualification)” and not under “अननवायय शैक्षनिक अहयता (Essential

Educational Qualification)”. The distinction between essential and

desirable qualifications is well recognized in service jurisprudence and

has been authoritatively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as

“desirable” cannot be treated as mandatory or essential unless the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2473

16 W.P. No.12337/2025

recruitment rules or advertisement clearly and unambiguously so

provide. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gopal Singh v. State Cadre

Forest Officers' Assn. - (2007) 9 SCC 369, has held that a desirable

qualification is merely an additional qualification and not an essential

one, and the relevant extract relied upon by the petitioners squarely

governs the present case which reads as follows:-

“32. The High Court while giving that finding has also

considered the educational qualifications required. The

qualifications required for AMM in the unamended Rules

were 5 years' experience of timber trade and sawing

practice. In sharp contradiction to this in the unamended

Rules the qualifications for ACF were Associateship

Diploma of the Forest Research Institute and Colleges,

Dehradun or equivalent with the educational

qualifications like degree in Natural Science, Maths,

Geology, Mechanical Engineering or Agriculture from

recognised university or equivalent qualification. In the

unamended Rules of 1963 these qualifications were not at

all there for AMM. The essential qualifications for the

post of ACF, therefore, clearly suggest that for being ACF

one has to have a degree in the subjects and also the

diploma of the recognised Forest Research Institute.

Barring the experience of the timber trade and sawing

practice of five years, there was no essential qualification

in the unamended Rules for the post of AMM. The degree

in Science was only a desirable qualification and not an

essential one. In 1973 after the amendment the post of

AMM also required the essential qualifications of a

degree in Civil, Mechanical or Chemical Engineering or

Master's degree in Chemistry from recognised university

or equivalent and three years' experience of timber or

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2473

17 W.P. No.12337/2025

sawing practice while the essential qualification for the

post of ACF was the degree in Natural Science, Maths,

Statistics, Geology, Mechanical Engineering, Civil or

Chemical Engineering, Agriculture or Economics, etc.

Therefore, one thing is clear that at least till 1973 there

was no necessity on the part of AMM to be a degree-

holder or to have a degree in any subject “connected with

forestry” nor was a diploma of Forest Research Institute

required unlike ACF. It would be clear from this that

again in 1973 the degree that was required was only in

Civil, Mechanical or Chemical Engineering or Master's

degree in Chemistry the subjects which have nothing to

do with forest. Further, unlike the ACF qualifications

there was no necessity on the part of AMM to have

Biology, Physics or Chemistry as subjects in Higher

Secondary or Matriculation or equivalent. This itself

suggests that the post of AMM was more technical based

than forestry based.”

27. This Court further holds that mere use of the word “mandatory” in

relation to a desirable qualification, without placing it under the

essential qualification clause creates ambiguity, and such ambiguity

cannot be resolved to the detriment of the candidate. If the

respondents intended to make possession of “Post Graduate

Additional Registration” an essential condition as on the cut-off

date, the same ought to have been clearly, expressly, and

unequivocally incorporated in the advertisement. This Court is also

guided by the settled principle that any vagueness or ambiguity in a

recruitment advertisement must go to the benefit of the candidate

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2473

18 W.P. No.12337/2025

and not the employer, who is the author of the advertisement. This

principle has been lucidly enunciated by this Court in Parvaiz

Ahmad Parry vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and others,CIVIL

APPEAL No. 13368 OF 2015ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.

26131/2013

24. In our considered view, firstly, if there was any

ambiguity or vagueness noticed in prescribing the

qualification in the advertisement, then it should have been

clarified by the authority concerned in the advertisement

itself. Secondly, if it was not clarified, then benefit should

have been given to the candidate rather than to the

respondents. Thirdly, even assuming that there was no

ambiguity or/and any vagueness yet we find that the

appellant was admittedly having B.Sc. degree with Forestry

as one of the major subjects in his graduation and further

he was also having Masters degree in Forestry, i.e.,

M.Sc.(Forestry). In the light of these facts, we are of the

view that the appellant was possessed of the prescribed

qualification to apply for the post in question and his

application could not have been rejected treating him to be

an ineligible candidate for not possessing prescribed

qualification.

28. This Court also does not find merit in the contention of the

respondents that the requirement of “Post Graduate Additional

Registration” flows from a Government Gazette notification, as it is

trite law that eligibility conditions must be explicitly mentioned in the

recruitment advertisement itself. A candidate cannot be expected to

infer or import eligibility conditions from extraneous sources.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2473

19 W.P. No.12337/2025

29. This Court is of the considered view that permitting the

petitioners to participate in the selection process, accepting their

documents, issuing acknowledgements, and allowing them to appear in

interviews, followed by rejection of candidature on an unstated

eligibility condition, is manifestly arbitrary and defeats the principles of

fairness and transparency in public employment. The impugned

rejection, having been effected during document verification or after

declaration of provisional results, on the basis of a condition not

forming part of the notified eligibility criteria, clearly amounts to

changing the rules of the game after the game has begun, which is

impermissible in law.

30. The law on the said issue is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512,

has clearly held that the criteria for selection or eligibility cannot be

altered after the selection process has been completed, as the same

would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game has

been played, which is impermissible in law. The relevant and operative

observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court read as under:-

27. But what could not have been done was the second change,

by introduction of the criterion of minimum marks for the

interview. The minimum marks for interview had never been

adopted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court earlier for selection

of District & Sessions Judges, (Grade II). In regard to the

present selection, the Administrative Committee merely adopted

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2473

20 W.P. No.12337/2025

the previous procedure in vogue. The previous procedure as

stated above was to apply minimum marks only for written

examination and not for the oral examination. We have referred

to the proper interpretation of the earlier Resolutions dated 24-

7-2001 and 21-2-2002 and held that what was adopted on 30-

11-2004 was only minimum marks for written examination and

not for the interviews. Therefore, introduction of the requirement

of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection

process (consisting of written examination and interview) was

completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game

after the game was played which is clearly impermissible. We

are fortified in this view by several decisions of this Court. It is

sufficient to refer to three of them — P.K. Ramachandra

Iyer v. Union of India [(1984) 2 SCC 141 : 1984 SCC (L&S)

214] , Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India [(1985) 3

SCC 721 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 919] and Durgacharan

Misra v. State of Orissa [(1987) 4 SCC 646 : 1988 SCC (L&S)

36 : (1987) 5 ATC 148] .

32. In Maharashtra SRTC v. Rajendra Bhimrao

Mandve [(2001) 10 SCC 51 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 720] this Court

observed that “the rules of the game, meaning thereby, that the

criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities

concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has

commenced”. In this case the position is much more serious.

Here, not only the rules of the game were changed, but they

were changed after the game had been played and the results of

the game were being awaited. That is unacceptable and

impermissible.

31. The said principle has been reiterated and authoritatively

affirmed by a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tej

Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court passed in CIVIL

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2473

21 W.P. No.12337/2025

APPEAL No.2634 OF 2013 (decided on 07.09.2024), wherein it has

been held that the doctrine prohibiting change of rules mid-way is

against the essence of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and strikes

at arbitrariness in matters of public employment governed by Article

16. The relevant and operative observations of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court read as under:-

13. The process of recruitment begins with the issuance of

advertisement and ends with the filling up of notified vacancies.

It consists of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of

applications, rejection of defective applications or elimination

of ineligible candidates, conducting examinations, calling for

interview or viva voce and preparation of list of successful

candidates for appointment.

(B) BASIS OF THE DOCTRINE

14. The doctrine proscribing change of rules midway through

the game, or after the game is played, is predicated on the rule

against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.

Article 16 is only an instance of the application of the concept of

equality enshrined in Article 14. In other words Article 14 is the

genus while Article 16 is a species. Article 16 gives effect to the

concept of equality in all matters relating to public employment.

These two articles strike at arbitrariness in State action and

ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require that

State action must be based on valid relevant principles alike to

all similarly situate and not to be guided by any extraneous or

irrelevant considerations. In all its actions, the State is bound to

act fairly, in a transparent manner. This is an elementary

requirement of the guarantee against arbitrary State action

which Article 14 of the Constitution adopts. A deprivation of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2473

22 W.P. No.12337/2025

the entitlement of private citizens and private business must be

proportional to a requirement grounded in public interest.

15. The principle of fairness in action requires that public

authorities be held accountable for their representations. Good

administration requires public authorities to act in a predictable

manner and honour the promises made or practices established

unless there is good reason not to do so.

16. Candidates participating in a recruitment process have

legitimate expectation that the process of selection will be fair

and non-arbitrary. The basis of doctrine of legitimate

expectation in public law is founded on the principles of fairness

and non-arbitrariness in government dealings with individuals.

It recognises that a public authority’s promise or past conduct

will give rise to a legitimate expectation. This doctrine is

premised on the notion that public authorities, while performing

their public duties, ought to honour their promises or past

practices. The legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred if it

is rooted in law, custom, or established procedure.17 However,

the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not impede or hinder

the power of the public authorities to lay down a policy or

withdraw it. The public authority has the discretion to exercise

the full range of choices available within its executive power.

The public authority often has to take into consideration diverse

factors, concerns, and interests before arriving at a particular

policy decision. The courts are generally cautious in interfering

with a bona fide decision of public authorities which denies

legitimate expectation provided such a decision is taken in the

larger public interest. Thus, public interest serves as a

limitation on the application of the doctrine of legitimate

expectation. Courts have to determine whether the public

interest is compelling and sufficient to outweigh the legitimate

expectation of the claimant. While performing a balancing

exercise, courts have to often grapple with the issues of burden

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2473

23 W.P. No.12337/2025

and standard of proof required to dislodge the claim of

legitimate expectation.

32. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners had a

legitimate expectation that their candidature would be evaluated strictly

in accordance with the eligibility conditions prescribed in the

advertisement, and such expectation could not have been defeated by

introducing an unstated requirement at a belated stage, in the absence of

any overriding public interest.

33. The judgments relied upon by the respondents regarding strict

adherence to cut-off dates and non-relaxation of eligibility do not apply

to the present case, as those decisions pertain to situations where the

essential qualification itself was lacking on the cut-off date. In the

present case, the essential educational qualification was admittedly

possessed within time.

34. Similarly, the reliance placed on judgments relating to

suppression or misrepresentation of facts is misplaced in the present

matter, as the rejection of the petitioners’ candidature is not founded on

any finding of deliberate suppression or fraud, but solely on a technical

requirement introduced post facto.

35. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the

considered opinion that if the result of the essential educational

qualification, namely, Post Graduate Diploma in the relevant subject

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2473

24 W.P. No.12337/2025

recognized by the Medical Council of India, or C.P.S. Diploma or an

equivalent qualification, or a Post Graduate Degree in the relevant

subject recognized by the Medical Council of India, or a Super

Specialty Degree/Diploma in the relevant subject recognized by the

Medical Council of India, has been declared on or before the last

extended date of submission of applications i.e. 21.04.2025, the

petitioners cannot be restricted from pursuing the recruitment process.

Mere non-possession or non-submission of “Post Graduate Additional

Registration” as on the cut-off date shall not operate as a bar to their

participation in the recruitment process.

36. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed in the following

terms:

(a) The petitioners are directed to approach the competent

authority within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified

copy of this order, along with the certificates/documents relating to

their essential educational qualification as spelt out in the

advertisement.

(b) The competent authority shall examine the said

certificates/documents solely for the purpose of verifying whether the

petitioners possess the essential educational qualification, namely, Post

Graduate Diploma in the relevant subject recognized by the Medical

Council of India, or C.P.S. Diploma or an equivalent qualification, or a

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2473

25 W.P. No.12337/2025

Post Graduate Degree in the relevant subject recognized by the Medical

Council of India, or a Super Specialty Degree/Diploma in the relevant

subject recognized by the Medical Council of India, and whether the

result thereof was declared on or before the last extended date i.e.

21/04/2025, irrespective of the status of any “Additional Registration”.

(c) If upon such verification by the competent authority and if

the petitioners are found to fulfil the essential eligibility criteria as

mentioned above, they shall be permitted to pursue the recruitment

process further in accordance with law, and their candidature shall not

be rejected on the sole ground of non-submission of “Post Graduate

Additional Registration”.

37. The above entire exercise of verification and consequential

decision shall be completed by the competent authority within a further

period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the documents filed by the

petitioners as mandated at clause (a) of para-36 of this order.

38. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed in terms of the

directions indicated hereinabove.

39. Pending applications shall be disposed off accordingly.

40. It is further directed that a copy of this order shall be kept on

record in all connected writ petitions connected with the present batch

of petitions.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2473

26 W.P. No.12337/2025

(Jai Kumar Pillai)

Judge

hk/